User talk:A Musing/Archive-July 20, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, A Musing/Archive-July 20, 2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Slgrandson 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comments

If you want to add comments for other editors, please use <!--YOUR COMMENT HERE--> so that they do not appear in the article but only in edit mode. Happy editing. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - this is useful.Smawnmahlau

[edit] Edward VI

Thanks for the edits. :) However, I plan to refactor the headings of that page. Doing so will take a bit of time. Are you done editing for now? --mav 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry portal

Hi there. I posted a response to your comment here [1] Thanks. Adambiswanger1 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Do you know anything about formatting? I can't format this portal for my life. Adambiswanger1 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks a million. Two million. That would've taken me years. The only thing now is getting rid of those {{{The Poetry Portal}}} icons at the bottom of the page, and making the top of each box have the appropriate heading--e.g., "Featured article" Adambiswanger1 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I added mythology. I have no idea what the deal is with the black lines over the images. Adambiswanger1 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Can't quite figure out the footers, either. If you delete the footer box on the main page they go away, but once you get down below the break into two columns, deleting them screws up the columns. Sam 00:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hildegarde Flanner

Thanks for the quick help with the news section! However, I've removed the Hildegarde Flanner link as the NYT article seems to have been published in June 4, 1987 ... I know the news section will get out of date, but I don't think we need to start 19 years out of date :) ... I was also thinking that the second section would be just for links to WikiNews ... if Hildegarde Flanner had died recently I would have created an article for her and then made a bullet point in the first section. Correct me if I'm wrong about the date Hildegarde Flanner's death ... I'd never heard of her. Stumps 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I came across the article just yesterday with a June 8th date at the top - but, you're right! That's the date I accessed, not the date it was published! The volume I have was published by New Directions in the post-war period, and I was trying to figure out what happened to her because I'd come across another volume. In general, she was admired among the Pound/Eliot etc. crowd but I don't think she ever became widely popular. I think of her as a poet of exuberant suburban sprawl and big blue metal cars. An example:

Poem

At least and still at lingering last we can / Console ourselves because this earth is ours,/ Though we could never hurl the hurricane,/ Nor weld a hill, nor soft unlock the showers,/ Nor rivet the diamond under the abyss,/ Nor add the desert up, nor crumble the frost/ Over the flower’s face. Remembering this/ The warm security of pride is lost,/ For we are dull mismasters of a huge event/ And cannot think who tutored us to fail,/ We ruin so quick, and hope is nearly spent;/ But faint at intervals, benign and frail/ A courage whispers, just this side of fate,/ Cling earthward, inward, do not abdicate! /

Sam 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry timeline

Well spotted!! Yes, I've been slowly making a start at the poetry timeline, putting a few stub pages in place and spending far too much time fooling around with 'esoteric templates'. Anyhow, I think I'm getting close to having the basic structure in place. I want to have a page for each year, and a page per decade, and a page per century. Yes, truly enormous, but like they say about longest journeys beginning with a single step. Please feel free to help out with any of it! Stumps 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can start with Centuries in poetry ... don't worry too myuch about the template stuff, I'm still fiddling with that and will make sure everything is consistent once I have a stable approach. Stumps 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rock and Roll! I'll start populating some of the old stuff. Sam 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI—Article improvement drive

In response to your edit summary here, I did some research and discovered it was an accident. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sam 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit

FIFA have suffered no financial loss and been given no bad press as a result of the incedent so they have right to compensation or libel, the way such a lrage corporation works, it would be catastrophic for their PR to file a lawsuit against a non profit foundation run by anonymous members of the public. The FA status is not to do with former copyright violations anyway, it is to do with the value of the article as a show of what is the best work to offer on wikipedia.

If you see here

Wikipedia:What is a featured article?

and here

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

"If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."

on that grounds if you uphold your objection, it will be ignored.

Philc TECI 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't they prefer to politely knock the little guys back in line, with a stern letter or threat, with very little show, and just kick the teeth out of the big guy in public if he has the nerves to do the same. Philc TECI 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But isn't sueing anything that ends in "foundation" or "charity" just gunna turn your company into the big corporate bully. But anyway, copyrighted content has been put into the history of hundreds of articles alover the place by new, or unregistered users. So why is it biting this article in the ass, the one I worked on so hard! I'm sorry, but if this turns out to be the reason why it fails, I will just be absoultely gutted. Philc TECI 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping to get an article to FA with them, but if your feeling is widespread,.... Philc TECI 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lead section

The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold face at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose

well, I think pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit is a fair and accurate description of the article's subject. I realize that the article title is merely Vedic accent, but that is for brevity; the article could equally be located at Vedic pitch accent or pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit. It just seems silly to resort to a redundant "The Vedic accent is the pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit" just to have the literal article title in the lead. dab (ᛏ) 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

thank you; I hope I'll get round to expanding the article sometime. regarding poetry, I haven't heard the term "inflected accent" before and I am not sure what you mean by it. dab (ᛏ) 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither am I! I think that should be pitch accent, but the sentences right before it need some attention so it makes sense. Sam 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

  • I scoured by 8 or 9 books on poetry that I have, but the information is not about poetry itself, but poets. If I find anything else citable I'll be sure to add it. Adambiswanger1 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a slow start at putting some citations in. I'll do what I can. Those 'fact' tages really help knowing where to focus. Stumps 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The Averroes was dead on. I much prefer substantive footnotes like that, that really add to the article. Sam 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it deserved a mention. I didn't feel it was nonsense. Michaelritchie200 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I'm sorry...I didn't mean to come across as snide. I didn't elaborate on the Heritage or Biosphere issue when working on the Glacier National Park (US) article. I guess I thought it was wikilinked and that was sufficient. I can expand on the reasons for the designations.--MONGO 01:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Poetry, Turkish poetry, etc.

Hey, thanks for your message (both the one on my talk page and the older one on Meter (poetry)'s talk page).

I have been thinking a bit about, as you say, "dig[ging] deeper" on the Poetry article; the only thing is, it's quite a good article (soon to become featured, hopefully) as is, and so all I can think up for the nonce is copyediting and similar minor changes. I could, of course, try and add more on Turkish and Ottoman Turkish poetry, but I don't think it's really necessary: it would just start bogging the article down with detail (though perhaps I could add a name or a technique or something here and there, provided I can think of any and find an appropriate place for it). By the way, I'm not actually involved in the Turkish Wikipedia (or "Vikipedi", which is this), but rather with Turkish-type articles, mostly Ottoman-related, here on the English Wikipedia.

As for your comments about Ottoman Turkish meter on the "Meter" article, firstly, thanks for the compliments; I'm glad you found it well done. I do want to get the relevant information about Ottoman feet onto the Foot (prosody) article, but because that article is currently in such an (let's be honest) abysmal shape, I'm not sure how to really fit it in there at the moment: it would require some substantial rewriting of the intro bit, for example. Perhaps—once your adventures with the "Poetry" article have panned out—you'd be willing to work together on getting the "Foot" article into shape ... ?

Cheers. —Saposcat 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare

Yea hopefully they'll wander on over to the Shakespeare's sonnets page and see the sonnet template. Do you think there's any way to get their attention and divert them to the project? AdamBiswanger1 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry Portal July Language Corner

We need something for ... Portal:Poetry/Language Corner archive/July 2006 ... any ideas? Stumps 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Alliterative verse is full enough to be a selected article I suppose. I haven't thought too much about the direction of the 'Language Corner'; I liked the Vedic accent, I think the foreign language aspect was important. I wouldn't worry about looking as though you're 'taking over', it's just great ot see the work getting done. I'm plannign to make Archive pages like Portal:Poetry/Selected article archive whose talk pages would be the perfect place for lists of candidates and discussions, which will make it easier for people to put their suggestions forward and step by step get involved. Stumps 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Epic of Gilgamesh was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

[edit] An exceptional newcomer

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
With only two months of editing under your belt, your work on poetry is an accomplishment attained by few Wikipedians, even those who have been contributing for years. I'm proud to present you this award. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnets

Wow that was wild. I thought that the proposed deletion was for all of the sonnets, so I wrote a scathing condemnation of everyone who voted "delete", but then I looked above, and noticed that someone had created articles with no text, and I changed my comment. I'll still vote keep, though. AdamBiswanger1 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Louvre was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

- Davodd 05:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting Grace Alone

We have users that are insisting on documentation for the obvious. Would you weigh in on this at talk:Martin Luther? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, they just want to trash Luther, I'm convinced. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry FA

Congratulations on getting it featured! I was happy to help with it. :) --Monocrat 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mantmoreland

Dear Sam:

See the talk:On the Jews and Their Lies. I'm going to ignore Mantmoreland for awhile and see if he stops the insults of me, other editors, scholars and their works. I just wanted you to know what's going on, since it has been a pleasure to work with you. If he says something of merit, say so. This is the only way I can keep from loosing my cool. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CTSWyneken

CTS, please do not make false accusations of "personal attacks." You've done this before with another editor and I objected to that too. These accusations are disruptive to Wikipedia, appear to me to be intended to stifle discussion, and are contrary to WP:POINT. Questioning the credentials of a person who you represent to be a "scholar," but whose very own CV refers to his vocation as a "journalist and editorial consultant," [2]is not a "personal attack" or an "insult" against you. These type of unwarranted accusations have beset the Martin Luther articles to which you are devoted.

As I have said before, please stop taking these edits personally, CTS. I have raised this issue several times in the past, concerning you and other editors, when I was brought in to On the Jews and Their Lies as a mediator and third eye. I noted this tactic then, and was against it then and against it now. I was rewarded with posts such as yours above, as well as vandalism and attacks by an editor who today was blocked for one week.

I used to be a recipient of the same kind of missive that CTSWyneken just placed on this user page. I was appealed to as a "reasonable editor" asked to "be aware" of another "bad editor." This is a pattern that must stop. Focus on the edits, not on the editor, and stop trying to intimidate other editors by making false accusations.--Mantanmoreland 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I note you even got an award from one of the warring editors. I think you are right to try to focus on the edits. But, be careful, both of these sides seem to be very good at getting under people's skins and dragging them in. Sam 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, Sam. I got a Barnstar from an editor who later -- when I disagreed with him -- subjected to me to a villifcation campaign. That editor, now blocked, is apparently an eminent Luther scholar according to his user page. This is an idea of the kind of emotions involved here. I've been a recipient of anti-Semitic missives by email and I'm not even Jewish, for crying out loud! Anyway, thanks for allowing me to vent and thanks for the use of the crying towel. Feel free to delete my post. Sorry for clogging.--Mantanmoreland 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] electors

Ah, now I see: I'd taken electors to mean voters at large (i.e., the people). Perhaps it's obvious from the context and doesn't need to be explicated. Tony 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This arose because of my microfocus; really, "electors" is quite clear from the wider context of the article. Thanks for clearing this up before it made me look silly.

Pity no one is going to fix it up, but that's WP, I guess. Tony 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther and the "Catholics"

Thanks for weighing in on this one. I'm not talking to Mantmoreland, since he constanntly questions my motives, scholars he doesn't like and now editors that put in the bit about Luther's marriage. I'll address that issue on the Luther talk page and others you raise, but I just want you to know why I'm here with this.

I have no problem with a discussion of Luther's rhetoric, although, as you've pointed out, it would take a lot of room to do it justice. In most cases, he gave as good as he got. (The Jews excepted) This was a violent time and the rhetoric does it justice. (this is the time of the Aztecs tearing the living hearts out of sacrificial victims, the inquisitiion, the conquest of the New World, Vlad the Impaler and Sueleman the Great at the gates of Vienna...) The key would be to say just that and tersely. It may be that short notice in the article and a subarticle to handle the whole story.

A word on "Catholic" Using the way Mantmoreland does is anachronistic. THe reformers called themselves catholic, too. Luther's beef was with the Pope and his supporters, called variously "Romanists," "Papists," and other less kind things.

Luther's polemic was very harsh and because he was talented as a writer, memorable. This is a part of his negative side, and we do not have to hide from it -- just be clear that in the case of the Papists and the anabaptist, provoked by similar. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, in your ad hominem on me above, you confused me with another of your targets. I had no opinion on Luther's marriage. --Mantanmoreland 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sam: Thanks for your note! It can be a bit tricky to find a way to talk about such matters. It is always uncomfortable to admit the failings of great people -- especially when you admire them for positive accomplishments which they've made. Luther's doctrine of simul justus et peccator -- saint and sinner at the same time -- helps a bit, as does his own opinion of his works, which he repeadly wished for the most part would be forgotten. For me, it affirms the teaching of salvation by grace that the great Reformer had feet of clay.
Where most of the emotion comes from on my side is when his writings, as horrid as they are, are made to be more than they are and when scholars who say otherwise are belittled, slandered and attacked.
That having been said, I'm fairly satisfied with the form of the intro you have in the sandbox. This is a busy evening, so I may not say much and certainly will not do much at Martin Luther tonight. I'll comment more fully at a later time. Thanks for joining us at this article. It's good to have another good editor on board! --CTS Wyneken(talk) 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help on Astronomy

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Astronomy was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by →LzyGenius 11:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

[edit] Edit Summary at Martin Luther

Sam: Please take a look at: this edit summary. Do you agree, especially with the characterization? --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I'm driving at is that Siemon-Netto has academic credentials and should be treated with respect. It is easy to get into a game of trying to attack the reputation of scholars. The last time that this man was attacked, I showed what going over vitaes with a fine tooth comb could do by looking at the background of Paul Johnson and Robert Michael. To say it mildly, it was not well received. But for some reason, editors on this subject want to go down that road constantly.
I would prefer to accept the published opinion of people respected for their scholarly and research skills. From that point on, we consider if they represent a majority or siginficant minority opinion.--CTSWyneken(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe everything in writing, even in academic journals. And I have not gone through the debate with a fine tooth comb, only skimmed what has been presented to me. But, given the academic credentials cited, I wouldn't attack Siemon-Netto myself without reading him and having specific unsupported viewpoints or otherwise showing inadequacy in his work. I do not take criticism that does not display a reading of the criticized very seriously, and it is not clear to me that his critics have read him (they may have, it just isn't clear from what I've read so far). On the other hand, to support him, I would recommend that you check book reviews in academic publications, citations in academic journals, and perhaps even citations in some of the later works they are citing. You also may consider going to the points you're citing and highlighting his own sources. So, I have no reason to believe he is not a credible, top shelf academic worthy of citation, and I do not question his citation, but, not having read him, I can't tell you if he is someone I myself would rely on or recommend to others. If others have read him and have specifics as to why he falls short, that would be more useful than what I've seen thus far. Sam 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirer et al

Yes, I saw, Sam. Note my brief reply. --Mantanmoreland 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note previous discussion of this subject, which I believe was in Year 26 of this thirty-years editing war. [3]. The same battle erupts every time a major historian is cited in a manner critical of Luther, and a minor historian is thrown in to offset and push the pro-Luther POV. I appreciate your efforts to be fair here but this eternal editing conflict is unlikely to be solved by your efforts. I speak from experience on that. Just a word to the wise, to lower your expectations and so you don't start ripping out your hair as I did approximately ten days ago.--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, I would have preferred to have held off weighing in on this, and am about to head off and get some work done and let everyone else at it. That having been said, have you read Simeon-Netto or done some of the spade work yourself? Sam 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the other page. This skirmish in the 30 years editing war I think needs to be fought on the relevant article talk page. Also I would suggest again that you read through the discussion here [4], in which this very subject was discussed. The issue is the view of Source X by objective, third party sources, not the personal opinions of Wikpedia editors or whether or not Wikipedia editors have read every word by every source cited.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Oesterreicher link

Great link!--Mantanmoreland 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It's all I could find by him accessible on line for free (there's something from Commentary in its archives, but registration is required). I thought the discussion was excellent; thank you for making me aware of him. Sam 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to the article. Unfortunately I have not devoted to the article sufficient time and I hate to be the only contributor.--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Pig Award

I love that flying pig award that was posted on Talk:Martin Luther. Do you release the rights so that one might post it on one's user page? It's great to dream the impossible dream and achieve it! With kind regards,--Drboisclair 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I really want that to be a collective award, but I've seen all kinds of situations for it's use. Like the debate over whether the Democratic-Republican Party should be called the Democratic-Republican Party or the Republican Party (as it was generally known at the time. But I think it should be used for any collective situation. Sam 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you are referring to the party that developed out of the Anti-Federalists at the beginning of the 19th Century, the party of Thomas Jefferson, right? Whoops, I missed the link in your post.--Drboisclair 01:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An award for you

For his genialness and his tenacious desire to keep to the business of editing articles I award A Musing Sam this Editor's Barnstar! Drboisclair 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
For his genialness and his tenacious desire to keep to the business of editing articles I award A Musing Sam this Editor's Barnstar! Drboisclair 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making my evening.--Drboisclair 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther page post

I appreciated the time it took you to post that couple of paragraphs. I can follow your thinking, and I agree. I hope that you will remain on this project because you add a more centrist view on all of this. The bottom line is: this material needs to be summarized. It can be taken lock, stock, and barrel to the subsidiary article Martin Luther and the Jews as well as On the Jews and Their Lies. The problem is the mutual distrust among editors. They simply need to work to receive the flying pig award that you would award them ;-).--Drboisclair 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther page

Sam, thanks for your calm way of handling the Luther page issues. I think you are being fair and even handed. I'm learning a lot from you on how best to navigate the often storm-tossed seas that is Wikipedia. I'm apparently not getting through on the issue of how the "Luther and Antisemitism" article goes about labelling people. There is, to me, quite a good deal of inconsistency. Some's religiious affiliation is pointed out, where others' is not. Some historians are so identified, others are not. Some scholars are so identified, others not. This is, at this point, to me one of the chief reason why there is the constant back-and-forth charge and counter-charge of POV pushing. It seems a lot might go away if we either identified people, who they are, their credentials, etc. or not. For instance, why is Netto identfiied as a "Lutheran lay theologian" but the head of the Holocaust institute not identified as a Jewish Rabbi, and a "Jewish-American scholar" as his Wiki page puts it? Why are historians like Rupp and Bainton not so identified? Why is Martin Brecht described as a "German historian" instead of just a historian? It was interesting to notice how there was instant resistance to describing the Jewish scholars as such when I did it yesterday, but we have cited as an authority on the issues, and I don't doubt that he is, the head of a Jewish studies department? If we are going to label people then either we do so consistently, or we do so not at all. That's the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps you can kindly advise me of how precisely I'm going about this point the wrong way? Thanks for your advice.Ptmccain 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This issue is one of the ones I first got drawn in on, when I weighted in during the Featured Article Review, saying that I thought sources should be strong enough to stand on their own, and adding additional identifying information ought to be unnecessary. I've lost that one, I realize, and I think people are going to be identified in some way. I'd like to get everyone to take it up a level, and look at whether we're agreed that there should be a consistent approach to labeling, and then discuss what it should be, and then start with the labeling if we must. I think the more abstract discussions will be easier to start with. However, I also think the biggest problem right now is getting everyone to stop and listen rather than dismissing offhand; until more people want to listen, this is just going to remain stalemated and difficult. Some people may not believe anyone is willing to listen and consider their point until it is done many times.
As to precisely what I think you could do differently, I would focus first on carefully articulating your points on the talk page before making changes, as if you're explaining them to a neutral third party and not someone you are in a debate with; that would be great. Though I'll warn you, you'll have to do a fair bit of this before you get a lot of people to start listening. Just some thoughts. Sam 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I'm trying to do now, per my discussion on the Luther page talk page on the "labelling" issue. Appreciate the advice.Ptmccain
While you were posting this, I also had a separate idea, which you'll see on the talk page on Luther. I hope you'll participate. Sam 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I am, and thanks. I hope other editors will take up your encouragement to participate in a fair and objective manner. I would welcome your responses to my post and participation in the little discsussion now going on. I'm having a hard time undertanding how it is "relevant" that a person is a Lutheran or published by a Lutheran publishing company in the Luther and Antisemitism, but irrelevant if that person is a Rabbi and published by the Holocaust Museum. I don't get that at all.Ptmccain 21:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the conflict comes from that a person "is a Lutheran." This is an intentional misquote of what I said quite plainly. I expect that from Ptmccain. But Sam, you lose credibility when you base your comments on Ptmccain's characterizations and don't bother to actually read the comments in question. Talk about "talking past one another." It helps to actually read what people are saying. This kind of thing is why the Martin Luther talk pages are a meatgrinder that wears down editors.--Mantanmoreland 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther and Catholic Continuity

Yes, in fact, Luther and the Lutheran confessions argue their position is the position of the "catholic," meaning "universal" church, going back to the early church fathers. To them, it was Rome that left them not they they left the church. But the Catholic tradition has pretty much cornered the market on the term. So Lutherans went to "evangelical." But then came a tradition that... And "protestant," but... We go with Lutheran, then! 8-) But now... *sigh*

For the article's purpose, though, we should not use terms Lutheran, Protestant, Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc. to describe periods before they were coined. At least, I don't think so. I also prefer terms comfortable to the groups we refer to. So, how do you all like to be named? --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From an historical perspective, I like using terms people themselves used, and so that's usually my first approach. But, I amend that where a term may have negative connotations. I have nothing against the pre-Reformation Church being called the Western Church or the Roman Church (I think I'd inserted a Catholic in one of these before but now withdraw it); post-reformation, I prefer Roman Catholic; while many Roman Catholics will use just Catholic, I recognize the issue here and see no reason why Roman Catholic should be avoided. Sam 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Luther discussion

Yes I have noticed that the discussion on the Martin Luther page has become more and more pointless and rambling, and that with your active assistance it has drifted aimlessly and focused on tangential issues raised by the same editors who have dominated this page for years. For years they have obstructed any effort to bring NPOV to this page by throwing up a variety of obstacles, and now you are their strong right arm.

As to tone, in place of personal attacks and POV edits there are now lengthy pointless essays and POV edits. However I don't expect you to realize that, as some of your recent comments indicate you have not read the pages very carefully (such as when you responded to something I didn't say. So please spare me your sanctimonious lectures and stop playing moderator.--Mantanmoreland 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what - you engage in some civil dialogue on substantive issues for a while, and I'll go away. Actually engage directly on issues of your choosing, without the attacks. Spend a couple days trying to work it out - if it doesn't work out, you can go back to the same old when it is done. If you'll do that for the next 48 hours, I'll go away for the next 48 hours. I have no interest in playing moderator, I am an editor like you, but one who wants the incivility to end. If you want a moderator or a mediator, agree to one as you've been offered. Sam 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to stay or remain. I don't see where you got the idea I would care one way or the other. All I'm saying is that your talk page contributions are a good deal less helpful than you appear to believe they are. You are not creating consensus but merely being partisan in a nice way. Now that is fine. I would rather that someone represent a position in a nice way than in a nasty way, but it is still being partisan. Please don't represent your posts otherwise and please avoid a sanctimonious tone that I and other users have found to be irritating. --Mantanmoreland 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, regrettably, I had to inform the editor with whom are speaking in this section that unless his comments on my user talk pages were in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:GF he would no longer be welcome to comment on my talk page and his inappropriate remarks would be deleted per WP:CIVIL guidelines. It would be pointless to be dragged into incessant back and forth with the individual when he is in such an agitated emotional state and consequently having a hard time respecting WP:CIVIL. I believe it is a kindness not to faciliate this behavior and thus only encourage more of it. Something to consider. Sorry you are getting a bashing simply from trying to help us all be more civil on the Martin Luther page. I regret, truly, anything I have done in the past to contribute to that atmosphere, and would hope other editors take equal responsibility for their own failings in this regard. Thanks for your efforts.Ptmccain 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, maybe you've done this, but I have spent some time very carefully reading the WP:CIVIL pages and have found them to be very helpful. For instance, this advice is really great to follow: "Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach). Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist." For me now, following that advice, it has very much become a matter of mind over matter. You no longer mind, because they simply do not matter when they behave in uncivil fashion. The temptation is to lash out and respond in kind, and I've done that, much to my regret now. There seems to be a certain mental make-up of some who spend most of their waking hours on Wikipedia. They seem to thrive on conflict and attacking people and throwing their weight around and threatening people and verbally bullying, harassing and keeping up a constant barrage of attacks and criticisms. They seem to delight in it and obviously consider themselves quite impressive when they do. Interestingly, if you look at many of their user contribution pages their participation in Wiki seems limited to nothing but verbal sparring. I get the impression that many of them know very little about the subjects they are involved with, which of course is part of the big problem with Wikipedia. But why these odd anti-social behaviors? Perhaps they are working out personal frustrations on these pages, taking it out on others. Perhaps it is a way to deal with a whole host of personal inadequacies. Who knows, but it is sad that Wiki is cluttered with this kind of puerile behavior. It is quite bizarre. And they almost always do it from behind the cloak of anonymity. Some Wiki users even assume multiple personalities to further advance this odd behavior. It seems to me at times that what we are dealing with is at times on Wikipedia is one person who is using multiple identities, which is itself rather odd too, when you think about it. It is a real case study in human psyche. I've learned a lot from the experience and have found that taking the WP:CIVIL advice has added immeasurably to my enjoyment of Wikipedia. People who insist on attacking and belittling you only make themselves look small and petty, as is generally the case. Not responding at all, or responding only with objectivity and kindness is the way to go. I was not used to the level of animosity and incivility I have encountered here on Wikipedia and allowed myself to be dragged into it. A good learning experience. I'm resolved to simply ignore the hostility and deal appropriately with those who insist on wrestling around in the mud. If they insist on doing so, I'm not going to climb down into the mudhole and join them. Hang in there Sam. Best thing you can do is just ignore them. "Don't feed the trolls" is still very sound advice.Ptmccain 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Reverend, I posted warnings on your user page that you removed, and then you removed replies to your "retaliatory warning," and compounded that by using false edit summaries. You've done this in the past. Stop piously invoking Wikipedia policies while trashing them in your edits and actions.--Mantanmoreland 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)